If you have to raise your exposure by 4 stops afterwards, you are not 'very good' at nailing the exposure... Then again, it's nice to be able to do that without introducing a lot of noise.

Wow! Another clueless self proclaimed expert, making a fool out of himself with the "proper exposure-comment".

Unbelievable! That's all I have to say.

I'm no expert at all, but I never ever had to go past +2EV. Probably because I'm not a landscape shooter. I'm also a person who thinks that shadows need to stay true to their nature i.e. being dark and not revealing a lot of detail.

seta666

@ neuroanatomists: You are right, there is lots of things that make a camera, but DXOmark only reviews sensors and this is what I am talking about here. In film days people would choose to use Kodachrome, velvia or whichever film they would like. Todays film are sensors, and Sony sensors (nikon, pentax even olympus now) are the best

I never saw anyone at Dxomark saying canon cameras are bad, they only talk about sensors and what they say is that canon sensor technology has a problem at base ISO. At high ISO all this cameras are about the same (I mean the full frame cameras, 5D mkII, 5D mkIII and D800) but at base ISO the difference in my opinion is huge

In my opinion Canon makes very good cameras and lenses, but very bad sensors

@jocau: One of the only advantages film still has over Digital sensors is Latitude (aka DR), today Sony sensors offer a very high latitude (still a bit far from best film results). I remember seeing an example of almost 20EV film shot (Backlight shot with shadow recovery). One advantage of film also is that DR is high even at high ISO, with digital at high ISOs DR tends to be low

Resolution wise and for High ISO film has been surpased by digital long ago.

Some scenes may need 7EV DR and some others may need 14+ EV, so high DR capabities are always very wellcome. As an example I can asure you that the blacks I get from my 5D mkII have no texture information at all, nothing I can extract from them

I am a macro photographer (working from 1:1 to 100:1); I work with focus stacking technique on tripod. Until now the only cameras I could use were Canon as they were the only cameras offering EFSC (Electronic first shutter curtain), a very important feature in macro photography. Now also the Sony NEX cameras offer this feature, also the nikon 1 system and panasonic G5 so I am not stuck with Canon anymore

Af all the systems you can get today with EFSC sony nex offers the best base ISO with good DR, low noise and good colours I would qualify NEX 5N output image quality between EOS 5D and EOS 5d mkII with better DR than both but slightly lower resolution than EOS 5D mkII

Every photographer has different priorities and my priorities are as folows:

1- EFSC Very important for working with continious light in macro2- Good base ISO Working on tripod I normally use ISO 1003- EF compatibility You can use EF lenses on NEX cameras via adapter, like the MP-E

AF, video, continious shotting, viewfinder, etc are all secondary to my needs but I understand a sports, landscape, wedding, fashion, etc.. photographer will have completely different needs than I do.

Nice to see that the 6D has a better DR score than the much more expensive 5D3 and 1Dx. Weakest point of the 6D is its AF system. But then again, people could shoot sports back in the days when cameras were manual focus only. Makes me wonder if we have become noobs because we need a great AF system (e.g. 5D3) to shoot sports nowadays...

I think the quantity of great sport shots has increased greatly over the manual focus AF days. I would imagine in the olden days, people shot with relatively smaller apertures, and focused on the line of scrimmage. I just looked back on Google to find photos from Super Bowls of old, and it appears that almost all of the images were taken of players near the line. I would think the other shots were taken by focusing on a yard line for example, and waiting for the player to enter the zone of sharp focus, then shoot.

In this sense, I would think that having AF greatly improves the variety of sport shots.

I am fed up with all the people who think the only thing inside that magnesium alloy or polycarbonate shell is a CMOS image sensor, and that DxOMark Scores are the sole determinant of camera performance. Normally those tend to be Nikon trolls.

You could give an NFL sideline photographer a D800 with it's super sensor, or a 1D3. The D800 may have a better sensor, but that NFL photographer would certainly notice the 4 FPS difference (w/grip) or 6 FPS difference (w/o grip).

A starting-out wedding videographer could choose between the 5D2/6D or D600, the D600 may have a technically better sensor, but not having aperture control in video would be a dealbreaker for the D600.

Alternatively, a landscape or studio shooter, may prefer the D800 to the Canon's

Other odd thing is the Sony nex-5n. I have that camera. I also have the Canon 7d. Using both the same lens, I get pretty much the same kind off images. Canon 7d is better with high ISO's and the 5n is slightly better in ISO 100. But still people say that Canon is using old tech? What the f... 5n is newer but the sensor isn't better at all. I do not get any better pictures with the 5n, no extra dynamic range, actually it's highlight handling is worse with haloing around bright objects and sometimes vertical streaks (shown when shadows boosted in high iso). I get better pictures with the 7d. And the 7d is OLD.

I think it's complete wrongness to say that EVERY Canon sensor is now suddenly "old tech". Well how come the 5n is about as good as the 7d sensor wise? Yes, the D800 has a great sensor but how do you extrapolate that to EVERY sensor and EVERY camera from a certain manufacturer? The new Nikons other than the D800 are not nearly as good.

The guy has a valid point whether or not you agree with his understanding and definition of the term "exposure". I have used the totally awful 5dII for years and have yet to find a shot where I needed to yank the bottom end 4 stops.

I am fed up of all this people that say DXOmark results are fake, normally these tend to be Canon trolls.

There are a very, very tiny number of people who claim the DxOMark data are fake, and they are marginal and obvious trolls. But there is a rather large group of people who understand that DxOMark's Sensor Scores (note: Scores, not measurements) are not a good measure of overall sensor performance, and are not universally applicable to all shooting situations. Some people care about things other than DR at base ISO.

I am fed up with all the people who think the only thing inside that magnesium alloy or polycarbonate shell is a CMOS image sensor, and that DxOMark Scores are the sole determinant of camera performance. Normally those tend to be Nikon trolls.

As I said before Canon sensor tecnology is old by todays (Sony) standards; how can you explain Sony APS-C sensors have better DR than any FF canon camera? Again, I talk about base ISO

Canon trades base ISO performance for high ISO performance.

Get a RAW from a 5D3 or 6D taken at 12,800 and compare it to a D800 RAW taken at 12,800. D800 gets spanked.

Get a RAW from a 5D3 or 6D taken at 100 and compare it to a D800 RAW taken at 100. D800 does the spanking.

I kinda like having these choices in the marketplace. Right now low light is most important to me so I got a Canon. If I were purely a bright light shooter, I'd get the Nikon.

As for DxO, it's their scoring system, they can do what they want. Personally, I ignore the DxO Mark and just look at the data. It's stupid IMO to try to quantify every parameter of sensor performance into a single number, but again, it's their system and they have a right to do it however they want.

In my opinion Canon makes very good cameras and lenses, but very bad sensors

This is not the case at all; in fact Canon's actual sensor is on par with anything that Sony makes. One thing that you can easily see from the DxO data (if you know how to interpret it) is that the sensor itself is very quiet. The inherent noise of the sensor itself is as low as anything Sony or Nikon have ever produced. The trouble is the ADC architecture they have chosen to read the sensor data which appears to have a DR of around 12.5 bits (or stops).

The fact is that Canon had (and still DOES have) a top notch sensor design that is every bit as good as the others what they don’t appear to have is a similarly clever read out mechanism. This is splitting hairs a bit, I agree but to say that Canon makes “very bad” sensors is technically incorrect and shows that you don’t really understand the issue. Even in terms of QE (the efficiency that photons are converted to electrons that the camera electronics can work with) Canon is at 50% and Sony (D800) at 57%. The actual sensor read out noise is roughly the same for both as indicated by the top end of the DxO DR curve.

As for the read out mechanism, it is also quite likely implemented using state of the art pipeline A to D converters, hardly OLD technology… but in light of what Sony has done, this is clearly no longer providing an optimal as a solution to the image capture problem. It is also more expensive which should provide some encouragement to Canon shooters that they will whack this mole eventually.

Logged

seta666

This is not the case at all; in fact Canon's actual sensor is on par with anything that Sony makes. One thing that you can easily see from the DxO data (if you know how to interpret it) is that the sensor itself is very quiet. The inherent noise of the sensor itself is as low as anything Sony or Nikon have ever produced. The trouble is the ADC architecture they have chosen to read the sensor data which appears to have a DR of around 12.5 bits (or stops).

Your stament is absolutely right, I did not use the right expresion. As you say the problem has to do with A/D Conversion and I guess it can not change without Canon going into patents issues with Sony.

Some people are also saying that canon has chosen to get good high iso instead of good base ISO, I do not think this is true.

The S/N ratio on 5D mkIII vs D800 is the same on all ISOs as is Tonal Range; DR is the same at high ISO but at base ISO is far superior on the D800, color sensivity is superior on the D800 at all ISOs and that is with a much higher pixel count.

The S/N ratio on 6D vs D600 is superior on the D600 up to ISO 12.800; DR is way better o the D600 up to ISO 400, about the same up to ISO 3200 and better on the 6D from that on, color sensivity is superior on the D6006D is superior at ISO 25.600

And if you compare the 7d vs NEX-7 the 24mpx sony sensor is better at everything despite of the higher pixel count, specialy at DR and color sensivity.

So, in my opinion Canon sensors are way behind. OK, if you need best possible output at ISO 25.600 then get a 1DX or a D4, again the nikon will have best base ISO

If canon used a similar A/D conversion as Sony it would probably have the best sensors, or at least on par; but this will not hapen until they find a way of doing so without going into patent issues with Sony

All this started because it´s become normal for canon users to refer to DXOmark results as false; for camera reviews there are many different sites, but for sensor readings DXOmark is the only one I trust.

All this started because it´s become normal for canon users to refer to DXOmark results as false; for camera reviews there are many different sites, but for sensor readings DXOmark is the only one I trust.

Not all Canon users. But again, while their Measurements are useful, their Scores are not, because they are biased (only considering base ISO for some parameters) and not fully disclosed (weighted formulae but what weightings?).

Bill Claff's data are also quite good (and mirror DxO in many regards, but give some additional insights - worth a look if you haven't seen them.

seta666

Not all Canon users. But again, while their Measurements are useful, their Scores are not, because they are biased (only considering base ISO for some parameters) and not fully disclosed (weighted formulae but what weightings?).

Bill Claff's data are also quite good (and mirror DxO in many regards, but give some additional insights - worth a look if you haven't seen them.

Again you are right, not all but many. Anyway, most complains (99.9%) about DXOmark results come from canon users, M4/3 users could complain a lot also but they do not as they seem to know the limits of their systems

I do not care about DXOmark scores, thay are a bit weird(although they use the same system for every camera). What I look at is at the measurements and by my own experience those are right.

It is very easy for anyone to compare noise or DR,comparing things like color depth and color sensivitty are way more tricky (I guess you need some special software and gear)

Thank you for Bill Claff´s I remember seeing this site once but lost the link. His findings are pretty much the same as those of DXOmark (He must be another nikon troll ;-) 5D mkII and mkIII are about the same and D800 and D600 are superior at all ISOs

I also tried those Dpreview RAWS at ISO 3200, same as before; all images resampled to 26mpx so they have same size.

The reason I think K5 is the worst is because it "cooks" its RAWS from ISO 3200; but in real world situation all FF samples look about the same and all APS-C samples look the same; it would be very difficult to tell the difference. At base ISO those differences are way bigger

This is not the case at all; in fact Canon's actual sensor is on par with anything that Sony makes. One thing that you can easily see from the DxO data (if you know how to interpret it) is that the sensor itself is very quiet. The inherent noise of the sensor itself is as low as anything Sony or Nikon have ever produced. The trouble is the ADC architecture they have chosen to read the sensor data which appears to have a DR of around 12.5 bits (or stops).

Your stament is absolutely right, I did not use the right expresion. As you say the problem has to do with A/D Conversion and I guess it can not change without Canon going into patents issues with Sony.

Some people are also saying that canon has chosen to get good high iso instead of good base ISO, I do not think this is true.

The S/N ratio on 5D mkIII vs D800 is the same on all ISOs as is Tonal Range; DR is the same at high ISO but at base ISO is far superior on the D800, color sensivity is superior on the D800 at all ISOs and that is with a much higher pixel count.

The S/N ratio on 6D vs D600 is superior on the D600 up to ISO 12.800; DR is way better o the D600 up to ISO 400, about the same up to ISO 3200 and better on the 6D from that on, color sensivity is superior on the D6006D is superior at ISO 25.600

And if you compare the 7d vs NEX-7 the 24mpx sony sensor is better at everything despite of the higher pixel count, specialy at DR and color sensivity.

So, in my opinion Canon sensors are way behind. OK, if you need best possible output at ISO 25.600 then get a 1DX or a D4, again the nikon will have best base ISO

If canon used a similar A/D conversion as Sony it would probably have the best sensors, or at least on par; but this will not hapen until they find a way of doing so without going into patent issues with Sony

All this started because it´s become normal for canon users to refer to DXOmark results as false; for camera reviews there are many different sites, but for sensor readings DXOmark is the only one I trust.

Canon just needs to change their AFE (analog front end) methodology to something a bit more optimal for the job if they want to get the low signal level performance that the other guys have. FWIW: Canon also has patents covering distributed ADC architectures so I don’t think that the patents are the problem (although I once held that view). I believe that they will be driven by pure economics to integrate the ADC at some point since that thing is not cheap and when you couple that with the fact that the architecture is prone to be noisier, I don’t see any way around it – the only question is when.